In early January, I wrote a follow up editorial titled Facebook: The Evil Empire Part 2” which spoke to some problems I was having with Facebook locking me out of my account plus their poor customer support in getting the issue resolved.
Facebook earns my scorn again for its impending “Timeline” which will outline and catalog every little single thing that a person does using Facebook. Many don’t realize that Timeline will also reflect everything that a person said they “liked”, every place checked into with Facebook, every photo in which a user has been tagged, and any activity done using a Facebook app. It will be very easy for anyone to track everything you’ve said, everything you’ve done, and every place you’ve been.
That is – if you let them.
I loathe Facebook, but maintain a Facebook fan page for one of my blogs (as a convenience and courtesy to my readers who use Facebook), and my main Facebook page is reserved for immediate family connections only (none of which post very much anyway). I rarely post anything on my family page, and never post any personal information on my fan page. If I need to communicate anything of real importance to family or close friends, it’s done in person, by phone, or by email. I guess I am just one of those people that doesn’t think that the minutia of my life has to be chronicled for posterity by Facebook. After all, Facebook could care less about the actual people using Facebook – Facebook simply wants all the data it can get on you so it can advertise to you and make money off your personal activities.
Before Facebook Timeline switches on for everyone – which I believe will begin in the next week or so – I suggest everyone review what they have on their Timeline and delete what they don’t want others to see. Also, check all your Facebook privacy settings to make sure you’re sharing with only those people you really want to see all your activities. Review all the Facebook apps you’re using and revisit whether you really need to use them at all. Facebook users may not see the harm in having all that data out there about themselves, but it’s for the things that Facebook hasn’t told you about OR dreamed up yet for using your personal data that should be of concern. Because after all, Facebook is really NOT YOUR FRIEND
The “Stop Online Piracy Act” – or SOPA for short – may sound like a good thing in concept, but looks can be deceiving. The act, which moves to prevent copyright infringement and intellectual property theft, is actually a bill that would make it very easy for the government to shut down any web site.
Current legislation in the form of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which protects copyrighted material, make perfect sense as it gives copyright owners the ability to have the specific infringing content removed from a web site. But SOPA goes even farther by targeting the entire web site. This is a chilling thought.
Wikipedia, along with other web sites, have gone dark today in protest. It is an interesting move as it highlights to the world what can happen if someone deems that the web site is showing any content that is copyrighted. Other web sites, such as Google, have their logo blacked out and it some cases, the content will also show black bars (but can still be accessed). Imagine if someone – ANYONE – posted content or a video where they did not own the copyright, knowingly or unknowingly, that was fed into the Google search engine. SOPA, as written, could mean Google could be shut down it its entirety. Or, imagine if someone did the same on Twitter, Facebook, etc. You get the idea. All those web sites could be shut down, and you could find yourself silenced and cut off from information.
A recent experience I had with YouTube highlights what can happen with SOPA. I had uploaded videos that were given to me with complete approval from a television network. But, YouTube’s “bots” that look for copyrighted content not only sent me an email to tell me that I uploaded copyright content, but they threatened LEGAL ACTION if I disputed the claim and the network disagreed. This was horrifying to me that my YouTube channel would be shut down, and as it is connected to my web site, my web site would go with it. This is also what could happen to anyone else, with any web site, and happen in the blink of an eye. (By the way, I removed the videos and complained to the network’s PR organization, and videos I uploaded afterwards went through with no problem.)
I understand why content owners such as movie and music creators and publishers don’t want their content stolen and/or given away for free on a mass scale. But it makes more sense to me that the content owners work the issue out with the web site and get the facts FIRST before shutting a web site down or even threatening to shut down a web site. In my case, YouTube didn’t say they would shut me down right away, but with SOPA, they would likely not only have done so, but they would have risked being shut down themselves. (By the way, I believe that if a person legally purchases music, movies, books, etc. that they should have the right to share them with whomever they want.)
We live in a digital age where content is easy to share and easy to spread. But the answer to protecting copyrighted material is not to silence everyone. A simple process to allow the content owners to file a grievance against the hosting site with a designated authority, and allowing the site to appeal the ruling or confirm that they do have the approval to use the content is all that is needed.
In April 2010, I wrote an editorial titled “Is Facebook the New “Evil Empire”? Answer: Yes” which focused on Facebook’s game playing with privacy policies and controls. My most recent nightmare experience with Facebook deals with Facebook being too quick on the trigger for locking my account and their awful customer service.
Last week, I went to my Facebook page that I use for my collective web sites and got a pop up message saying that my account was “unavailable”. I could not log into my account but I – as well as others – could access my individual page to view it (but not post or make changes to it). The pop up message also said it was sending a code to my phone number (which was already on file from a previous verification process) so I could unlock my account. The code never came. Never. The same message gave me the option to request the code being resent, and when I did so, I got a message saying I was asking for too many codes!
After trying a few times to log in over the following few hours, I tried navigating Facebook’s help system to get an answer. Not finding an answer that addressed my specific issue, I used the option Facebook gave to send them an email to request help. I received an email within minutes – likely automated - that explained that I had to send in a scan of a government issued ID (like a driver’s license) to verify my identity. (It apparently didn’t matter that I already gave them my cell phone number under my own name months ago when they first requested it but I suppose they still didn’t think I was real.) I had my driver’s license already scanned so I was able to quickly attach it to the email and return the information to them within a few minutes.
Their response was less than immediate. I had to follow up 24 hours later pleading for a response. Meanwhile, I get the automated emails from Facebook saying “Here's some activity you may have missed on Facebook” and asking that I go to Facebook. I would have loved logging in to my page, but sadly I was still locked out. After another 24 hours, I finally get an answer from Facebook, saying that they changed my Facebook name from my web site address to my real name. Now really, why didn’t they simply ask me to do that first, rather than locking me out of my account and then making me jump through hoops? The page I had been using had been established for YEARS and frankly I have no idea why, after all that time, they could not have sent me an email in advance asking me to correct my name and/or giving me the chance to confirm my identify BEFORE they locked me out of account.
This experience is another reason why I only post links to my web sites – and not any actual content – on my Facebook page. With a Facebook lockout, users can lose all access to their own content. This is another reason why I will never store anything of any real significance in “The Cloud.” If any service that you use, such as Facebook or photo web sites like Flickr or Photobucket or Picasa, decides that you have somehow violated their lengthy and often complicated terms of service, you too can be shut out from all access to your personal content. While I do use blogger for all my web sites, I have all my content backed up so I could literally take it anywhere if the need arises. I should state that I am extremely careful with ANY service that I use not to violate their rules. And this is why Facebook’s behavior – assuming that I was somehow being dishonest and then locking me out of my account before simply asking me to clarify the situation – is what continues to make Facebook “The Evil Empire” in my eyes.
(A side note – of you are posting personal photos and videos on your Facebook page, just remember that Facebook is making money off YOUR content and you get no share of that huge revenue. Consider setting up an account with Google’s Blogger.com (the blog web sites are FREE) and also set up an account with Google’s AdSense which places ads on your blog web site. This allows YOU to make money off your own content. You won’t be able to retire on it anytime soon (unless you get a high volume of traffic) but at least it gives you a share of the bundles of money the web hosts are making on your content!)
While I believe that texting while driving a car, truck, bus, or train is inherently dangerous as it can not only take a driver’s hands off the wheel but also their eyes for too much time, the suggestion to ban hands free cell phone devices is just plain ridiculous. Talking on a cell phone while driving and using hands free device in the process is no more distracting than driving with a passenger in the car. Granted, sometimes having a passenger (or passengers) in the car can be a distraction, but the NTSB hasn’t suggested a ban on having passengers in a car or any other motor vehicle...yet.
If banning hands free cell phones comes to pass, maybe the NTSB should look at these other behaviors that can distract drivers:
1. Eating/drinking beverages while driving: – Admit it, everyone has seen a driver weaving down the road while drinking a cup of coffee or chowing down on a sandwich.
2. Applying makeup while driving: I’ve never had the urge to do this myself, but I have seen other women apply mascara while driving. Scary.
3. Having a radio/music player in the car: In the late 1960s, some kid trying to change the channel on his radio lost control of his car and demolished my parent’s mailbox as he went off the road. Imagine if we had a law banning changing radio channels in the 1960s – this accident would have never happened (sarcasm intended).
4. Changing the heating/cooling settings while driving: Sometimes it’s hard to see the controls, and I admit I must take my eyes off the road for a second to change them. Maybe if we didn’t have the ability to heat or cool our cars, there would be no accidents! (more sarcasm)
5. Putting purses, bags, briefcases, or any non-human object in the front seat: Sometimes things shift off the seat while driving, and sometimes people lean over to pick them up. Case in point: a Miami cop drive up a utility pole when he bent over to pick up a pen. If we ban any objects in the front seat – especially pens! – accidents like this will never occur. (even more sarcasm)
6. Simply looking out the window can distract a driver. Who hasn’t had something catch their eyes while driving which takes the eyes off the road for a brief period? Maybe everyone should wear blinders?
By now, you get my point. There are many things that can distract drivers, and sometimes bad things can happen when drivers are distracted. All it takes is a few seconds with a driver’s eyes off the road and accidents, even fatalities, can occur. Texting while driving IS a big problem. But let’s not get carried away with more rules and regulations that are not practical or that are very hard to police. If there were never any distractions, we’d have far fewer accidents. But we live in a world filled with distractions, and it is virtually impossible to write laws to prevent all of them. The best course of action is to educate drivers on what is safe driving behavior, and what is not – and to hope that the person behind the wheel has enough common sense to practice safe driving.
I could care less about the NBA players and whether the season even begins. Basketball is a boring sport. There is little suspense in the game, at least not until the last 3-5 minutes or so. With frequent and usually easy scoring opportunities, it’s not a sport that I want to waste much time in watching, especially one that simply goes back and forth on the playing court in rapid succession.
I do feel badly for the cities that host NBA teams, as many businesses in those cities rely on NBA games in order to bring in customers. This includes restaurants, hotels, retails stores, and even parking garages. And the cities themselves depend on the tax dollars gained from those businesses.
I don’t know all the details of the disagreement, but I do know it’s the players who have rejected the owners offer and are now resorting to games of their own by disbanding their union so they can file an antitrust lawsuit. With that in mind, I am inclined to believe that the players are being more greedy than the owners, and it’s the players that care the least about NBA fans and also the cities that host the teams.
But make no mistake – both the players and the owners have a lot to gain or lose here. Sadly, it’s the fans and the cities that suffer the most.
I thought this may be of interest to those of you following the Penn State sex abuse story. It’s a sickening tale, with the abuse of children going on in plain sight, with the sport of college football being protected more than the children. Courtesy of NBC, here is the video and a transcript segment from the interview that Bob Costas had with Jerry Sandusky on yesterday's "Rock Center." It will give you the creeps.
TRANSCRIPT: “ROCK CENTER WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” BOB COSTAS, JERRY SANDUSKY AND JOE AMENDOLA
Sandusky Breaks His Silence in an Exclusive Interview
New York, NY – November 14, 2011 – In an exclusive interview with Bob Costas for NBC's "Rock Center with Brian Williams," former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky speaks for the first time. Sandusky spoke to Costas via phone, his attorney Joe Amendola was in studio.
MANDATORY CREDIT: NBC News “Rock Center with Brian Williams”
November 14, 2011
BOB COSTAS:
Mr. Sandusky, there's a 40-count indictment. The grand jury report contains specific detail. There are multiple accusers, multiple eyewitnesses to various aspects of the abuse. A reasonable person says where there's this much smoke, there must be plenty of fire. What do you say?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
I say that I am innocent of those charges.
BOB COSTAS:
Innocent? Completely innocent and falsely accused in every aspect?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Well I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their leg. Without intent of sexual contact. But - so if you look at it that way - there are things that wouldn't - you know, would be accurate.
BOB COSTAS:
Are you denying that you had any inappropriate sexual contact with any of these underage boys?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Yes, I-- yes I am.
BOB COSTAS:
Never touched their genitals? Never engaged in oral sex?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Right.
BOB COSTAS:
What about Mike McQueary, the grad assistant who in 2002 walked into the shower where he says in specific detail that you were forcibly raping a boy who appeared to be ten or 11 years old? That his hands were up against the shower wall and he heard rhythmic slap, slap, slapping sounds and he described that as a rape?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
I would say that that's false.
BOB COSTAS:
What would be his motive to lie?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
You'd have to ask him that.
BOB COSTAS:
What did happen in the shower the night that Mike McQueary happened upon you and the young boy?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Okay, we-- we were showing and-- and horsing around. And he actually turned all the showers on and was-- actually sliding-- across the-- the floor. And we were-- as I recall possibly like snapping a towel, horseplay.
BOB COSTAS:
In 1998, a mother confronts you about taking a shower with her son and inappropriately touching him. Two detectives eavesdrop on a conversation with you, and you admit that maybe your private parts touched her son. What happened there?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
I can't exactly recall what was said there. In terms of-- what I did say was that if he felt that way, then I was wrong,
BOB COSTAS:
During one of those conversations, you said, "I understand, I was wrong, I wish I could get forgiveness," speaking now with the mother. "I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead." A guy falsely accused or a guy whose actions have been misinterpreted doesn't respond that way, does he?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
I don't know. I didn't say, to my recollection that I wish I were dead. I was hopeful that we could reconcile things.
BOB COSTAS:
Shortly after that in 2000, a janitor said that he saw you performing oral sex on a young boy in the showers-- in the Penn State locker facility. Did that happen?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
No.
BOB COSTAS:
How could somebody think they saw something as extreme and shocking as that when it hadn't occurred, and what would possibly be their motivation to fabricate it?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
You'd have to ask them.
BOB COSTAS:
It seems that if all of these accusations are false, you are the unluckiest and most persecuted man that any of us has ever heard about.
JERRY SANDUSKY:
(LAUGHS) I don't know what you want me to say. I don't think that these have been the best days of my life.
###
BOB COSTAS:
You said a few days ago much more is going to come out in our defense. In broad terms, what?
JOE AMENDOLA:
We expect we're going to have a number of kids. Now how many of those so-called eight kids, we're not sure. But we anticipate we're going to have at least several of those kids come forward and say this never happened. This is me. This is the allegation. It never occurred. In fact, one of the toughest allegations -- the McQueary violations -- what McQueary said he saw, we have information that that child says that never happened. Now grown up... now the person's in his twenties.
BOB COSTAS
Until now, we were told that that alleged victim could not be identified, you have iden--?
JOSEPH AMENDOLA:
By the commonwealth.
BOB COSTAS:
You have identified?
JOSEPH AMENDOLA:
We think we have
BOB COSTAS:
So you found him, the commonwealth has not?
JOSEPH AMENDOLA:
Interesting, isn't it?
BOB COSTAS:
Would you allow your own children to be alone with your client?
JOE AMENDOLA:
Absolutely. I believe in Jerry's innocence. Quite honestly, Bob, that's why I'm involved in the case.
BOB COSTAS:
You believe in his innocence?
JOE AMENDOLA:
His innocence.
###
BOB COSTAS:
To your knowledge did Joe Paterno at any time ever speak to you directly about your behavior?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
No.
BOB COSTAS:
Never?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
No.
BOB COSTAS:
He never asked you about what you might have done? He never asked you if you needed help? If you needed counseling?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
No. No.
BOB COSTAS:
Never? Never expressed disapproval of any kind?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
No.
BOB COSTAS:
How do you feel about what has happened to Penn State to Joe Paterno, and to the Penn State football program and your part in it?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
How would you think that I would feel about a university that I attended, about people that I've worked with, about people that I care so much about? And I mean how do you think I would feel about it? I feel horrible.
BOB COSTAS:
You feel horrible. Do you feel culpable?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
I'm not sure I know what you mean.
BOB COSTAS:
Do you feel guilty? Do you feel as if it's your fault?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Guilty--?
BOB COSTAS:
This is your fault?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
No I don't think it's my fault. I've obviously played a part in this.
BOB COSTAS:
How would you define the part you played? What are you willing to concede that you've done that was wrong and you wish you had not done it?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Well, in retrospect, I-- you know, I shouldn't have showered with those kids. You know
BOB COSTAS:
That's it?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Well that-- yeah, that's what hits me the most.
BOB COSTAS:
Are you a pedophile?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
No.
BOB COSTAS:
Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?
BOB COSTAS:
Yes.
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys.
BOB COSTAS:
Obviously you're entitled to a presumption of innocence and you'll receive a vigorous defense. On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of information out there and fair-minded common sense people have concluded that you are guilty of monstrous acts. And they are particularly unforgiving with the type of crimes that have been alleged here. And so millions of Americans who didn't know Jerry Sandusky's name until a week ago now regard you not only as a criminal, but I say this I think in a considered way, but as some sort of monster. How do you respond to them?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
And I don't know what I can say or what I could say that would make anybody feel any different now. I would just say that if somehow people could hang out until my attorney has a chance to fight, you know, for my innocence. That’s about all I could ask right now. And you know, obviously, it's a huge challenge.
The “Occupy Wall Street” protest continues and has been spreading to other cities. It is obvious that the protesters are unhappy with the economy, the lack of jobs, and corporate greed. It’s a good thing for people to protest when they think something in this country need fixing. Sadly, their protests – at least at this point in time – offer no real solutions to the problem.
Here in the United States, the economy is based on capitalism, which means that profit is the goal of any business. During the course of turning a profit, companies employ people, buy products, sell their products, and use all kinds of support systems (such as transportation, service, banking) to move their product, service their product or customers, and move the money. Capitalism makes the wheels of employment turn in this country.
Part of those wheels are in Wall Street, not the location specifically but what Wall Street represents – bankers, brokers, investors, fund managers, etc. These are the people who are involved more in controlling how money is invested and where it is invested. The movie “Wall Street” featured the character Gordon Gekko, whose tag line was “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” Greed may be good for Wall Street workers, but that greed is likely what helped to destroy the economy. But being greedy is not illegal.
The Occupy Wall Street protests seem to have a whole list of varying complaints – they don’t have a job, they don’t make enough money, their own investments in the market (as in 401k programs) are in the toilet – the list goes on. But no one is offering solutions. There seems to be no leadership within the Occupy Wall Street group, so there doesn’t seem to be central spokespersons to help drive the message home. And exactly what is that message? It seems to vary by person and even by city.
The Occupy Wall Street will help to draw attention to the plight of the lower and middle class working men and women who are struggling to survive in a dismal economy. But Occupy Wall Street needs to take that attention one step further by offing solutions for change, whether it be to propose new legislation or new ideas for to create jobs. It won’t be easy; if it were easy, someone would have done it already. It’s important to note that the greed in Wall Street is only one of the symptoms of the problem. The real issue is that our current laws allow Wall Street to have enough loopholes and/or lack of controls which encourages making money sometimes by simply moving money, or by using tax loopholes. Occupy Wall Street may be protesting the wrong people and area. They should be looking toward their own legislators and to Washington DC and how those legislators allow for laws – which includes a skewed taxation system - that only make the wealthy wealthier.
Our current legislators appear ineffective in creating an environment where job creation can thrive. No one truly cares if the rich get a little richer if EVERYONE can earn a good wage and can live a comfortable life. But jobs do not appear out of thin air, and it can take money in order to make money. We still need business owners to invest their own capital in order to create businesses and industries that create jobs, and these business owners deserve to reap those profits. Sometimes “Wall Street” can help make those businesses happen. There is no doubt, however, that those on Wall Street that create wealth by the use of smoke and mirrors - who get away with it because the laws allow it - need to be curtailed. Occupy Wall Street can help fix this problem – IF they can gain focus and make their rag-tag protests into a clearly defined movement with a real plan and a real purpose. Change is good – but change also can be very hard work.
